Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuselit (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. NorthAmerica1000 04:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fuselit
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable niche magazine; lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. References provided fail to meet WP:GNG. Previous AFD resulted in unianimous deletion, and subject has not increased in significant coverage since. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Lacks significant coverage" is on the mark as I never even know such of a magazine title.  VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: An article created and developed by a couple of WP:SPA accounts. Multiple searches (Guardian, Highbeam, Questia, Google) are turning up no evidence of notability; no reason to overturn the previous AfD decision. AllyD (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Doesn't appear to be meeting the standard of inclusion. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  09:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.